MRCA tender effect on FC-1 development

chinawhite

New Member
While capability wise the Mig-29 enjoys a marginal lead and the Mirage enjoys a bigger lead just comparing the payload and range of these two fighters. the FC-1 is not being designed as a multi-role aircraft as such and a fair comparison cannot be done like that.

What i meant as a counter was it was evoling to deal with more advanced threats. Its not being deisgned as such to counter any fighter but designed as to be more capable to counter fighters but no fighters in particular. Your thinking on the lines like pakistanis MRCA equivalent while im thinking more on the lines like it is being beefed up to pose a bigger challenge to the MRCA deal for whatever aircraft is being brought

The FC-1 in the begining was basically a upgraded Super-7 with russian engines and two piece MFD. This has later changed since the pakistani requiments have changed and now wants a more capable plane to counter future threats. The FC-1 being revised offers better performance all round. It has improved LEXs which almost mirrors the F-18 which might possiblity allow it great manuverbility and higher AOA. While its wing surface has increased by a largerish margin simliar to the F-16. I just going to assume this will allow it to hold more fuel and more weapons since the LERXs seem thick enough to hold fuel in and the great wing space leaves great room for fuel. But what im interested is the revised avonics suite with three large MFDs

Your not going to see a air battle where it is restricted to particular class or type of aircraft. Its basically going to be a free for all with the aircraft called into the airspace

As of now you cant say the Mirage or Mig-35 hold a advantage in air superioty if we were comparing the relivant technologies involed. Because comparing BVR missiles no missile holds a large advantage over the other. The FC-1 has the SD-10, Mig-35 has the R-77 (whatever type) and the Mirage has the Mica metor combo or just the meteor now.

ECM wise i wouldn't say any has a advantage or disadvantage. The pakistanis have their ways and get western equipment or even chinese ECM gear into their aircraft. First off im not going to go outright and speculate on things i will leave it until later on when we know the stats of each aircraft.

Im not to sure the word counter should be used since i think the PAF with the FC-1 and other fighters they have would be used in a air denial stragery invloing Sams and point interception combined with F-16 strikes with other aircraft providing support. I like the idea or moblie radar coverage with the Erieye proving coverage instead of ground based radar and could be a mix of air denial and air superioty in different areas or at different times. I think pakistans army now is more geared towards a defensive war instead of a offensive war so its not about winning air space as such but to defend your airspace and thats where the FC-1 comes in because it acts as a cheap force multiplyer which provides advanced avonics with a low price thus can be expendeble and be used as a delaying action until its taken into the UN

What the indians have now is called cold start whereby crack division shearhead lighting strikes into pakistani terrioty aimed at pakistani leadership and nuclear weapons. This in comparision to their "hot" start which was low heavy moblisation where it would moblize many divisions and would lose a lot of time and the surprise advantage. What cold start does is bring fewer divisions to battle but better armed and can be called on into action in a matter of days. What the pakistanis will be aiming to be is protect againest lighting strikes and possibilty counter with their own


What is being sought to counter the MRCA was the F-16 block 52s which have alreadys been made out to be the tip of the spear and pride of the pakistani airforce. But the plans to aquire their airforce with-in a airforce was postponed and now they ahve devised different stragterys.

I think the good ratio would be
200 FC-1s to act as cheap BVR interceptors or air superioty fighters
80 F-16s to act as strike and air superioty
8 AWACS aircraft. preferably erieye or even the Y-8 balance bean AWACS

Combined with older none BVR craft and some limited BVR craft. Mirage III Rose upgrades and the J-7s

And the rumour of J-10s coming into pakistani service would also mean maybe 100 J-10s to that list to achieve the desired goals of air superioty in pakitani airspace. But only J-10s if the F-16s were only 50 in number and would use them as a good air superioty strike platform because it has longer range and higher payload

Also Read
Current FC-1 progress
 

aaaditya

New Member
you have to take into consideration the radar capabilities of both the mig29k and the mig35,the mig29k of the indian navy is equipped with the zhuk-me missile capable of detecting targets to a range of 120kms,engaging 4 while tracking 10,4500 tons weapon load,3d tvc ,twice the range of the original mig29(combat radius),the engines are the sea wasps a much advanced version of th rd33 engine currently being tested on the jf17thunder,and having digital fly by wire capability and advanced avionics,also it incorporates latest french and israeli self protection systems.

the mig35 has all these features ,plus has been offered with a choice of russian aesa radars like the epaulet-a and the indo-russian irbis(snow leapord radar),russians have offered a fit comparable to the su30mki integrating systems from france and israel,and have also stated that they are willing ti integrate whatever radar india chooses for this aircrafts,this aircraft is a tremendous improvement of the earlier mig29 in that it also has a russian stealth coating which is claimed to reduce the rcs by a factor of 10.

i believe that if india decides to acquire the mig35 they may leverage with russia to stop the supply of engines for the jf17 thunder,and to transfer the manufacturing facility for the klimov rd33 series of engines to india.
 

aaaditya

New Member
well heer is an interesting and latest article on the mrca deal which shows why this deal is important for the manufacturers,what are their expectations and their fears.

here check out this link:

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_06/d2indias1.htm


India’s quest for fighter could cost losers dearly

By Reuben F. Johnson / Asian Aerospace February 2006​

The Indian Air Force’s (IAF) medium multirole combat aircraft (M-MRCA) tender is beginning to resemble a free-for-all that shows no signs of abating and will continue for several years. What makes this tender an unusual one, however, is that the type of radar and onboard systems which will be included in the deal, the co-production arrangements to provide work for local Indian industry and geopolitical considerations are going to carry far more weight in the decision process than the actual choice of the aircraft itself.

When it is finally released, one the most important technical requirements that is expected to figure in the tender’s official request for proposals (RFP)–now delayed until as late as June–is the requirement that any fighter participating in the competition be equipped with an active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar. “We are ninety-five percent or better confident that having an AESA onboard is going to be a make-or-break condition of bidding on this program–it is the price of admission,” said one Western industry representative familiar with the program.

This creates a complicated scenario for some of the companies bidding, and has precipitated strange and previously unheard-of combinations of aircraft and radar suppliers.

Normally, integrating a new radar onto an airframe for the sake of just one customer is prohibitively expensive because of the nonrecurring costs, but the prospect of the unusually large sale of 126 aircraft to India–larger than any other export sale in more than 17 years–creates enough economies of scale that this issue is moot.
The good news is that the deal is so big there is a bonanza of a prize waiting for whichever firm is able to win the competition. The bad news is that the traditional features of Indian aircraft sales are an anathema to most of the firms vying for the tender. Those familiar with Indian defense procurements describe them as an arduous five years or more process that involve mountains of hand-written paperwork, fighting uphill battles against a stultifying bureaucracy, excessive regulations that tie companies in knots, labyrinthine cost and financial accounting requirements and all manner of other obstacles that seem designed to prevent a procurement from ever being successfully completed.

In the past, the major suppliers of weapons to India have been Russian defense enterprises, and a myriad of shadowy linkages between Russian and Indian middleman have normally been the mechanism by which these headaches are resolved, but this tack will not work if the Indians wish to retain the participation of most of the major Western firms on this tender.

The Line-Up
Provided the process can be made more user-friendly, there are several major players maneuvering for position in this competition.
Lockheed Martin’s venerable F-16 is the most popular aircraft in the region, but as of today only one model of the aircraft is equipped with an AESA, the Northrop Grumman (NG) AN/APG-80 that was developed for the F-16E/F Block 60. If Lockheed Martin were to sell some variant of the Block 60 to the IAF they would have to pay the United Arab Emirates (UAE) an approximate 7 percent per aircraft royalty, as the desert kingdom funded the development of this configuration and has resale commission rights. Another solution would be for Northrup Grumman to retrofit the AN/APG-80 to the F-16C/D Block 50, making it a “Block 50 double plus” variant, but this involves costs and engineering problems that are not tackled lightly–most notably adding a liquid-cooling system.

The other U.S. competitor is the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which the Chicago-based planemaker is working hard to promote since there are no export customers yet for the new E/F configuration. “India is the largest fighter deal since the beginning of the 1990s,” said Boeing Asia/Pacific regional vice president Mark Kronenberg here at Changi. “It’s got everybody’s attention.”
The Super Hornet is equipped with the Raytheon AN/APG-79, which is currently undergoing some of its final operational testing.
Raytheon representatives explained that the APG-79 model is the embodiment of all of the technologies and design concepts developed for their bid on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Currently, Raytheon is contracted to build a total of 232 units, which also provides the economies of scale necessary to be a competitive bidder.

Several years ago the Saab JAS-39 Gripen was considered the odds-on favorite for the Indian tender, and was at one time the only Western competitor in the race. Gripen International officials told Aviation International News that they were briefed here at Changi this week by the visiting chief of the IAF as to the requirements of the soon-to-be-issued tender. Gripen representatives would not comment as to the details, except to say that–based on the chief’s comments–“the Gripen and the [IAF Sukhoi-made] Su-30MKI would be a nice combination for India.” Ericsson, which supplies most of the electronics for the JAS-39, is bidding the Not Only a Radar (or NORA), which is supposed to contain some 1,000 transmit/receive (T/R) modules.

One of the real wild cards in the race is Dassault. A delegation accompanying French President Jacques Chirac on a three-day state visit to India this week included Dassault CEO Charles Edelstenne, who intimated what had been widely anticipated for some months now: that his firm would be following up its withdrawal of the Mirage 2000-5 from consideration in the M-MRCA tender with the offer of proposing the Rafale in its place.

“We explained that keeping the Mirage 2000 production line waiting [for five more years] would be too costly, but the Indian authorities obviously are not certain about this yet,” he told the French financial daily Les Echos. He told local Indian and international media that he is in New Delhi to “clarify the situation.” Although Edelstenne made no formal offer for an aircraft in place of the Mirage he did say that “we are waiting for the tender to be issued and to see whether we can bid with some other aircraft,” which could only be the Rafale.

The Russian Legacy
The biggest contender of all, however, may still be RSK-MiG in Russia. Over the last several decades, Russia has been India’s reliable and most consistent arms provider. India received massive technical assistance from Russia–including setting up a series production line at the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) plant in Nasik. The IAF was one of the first foreign customers to receive export versions of the MiG-29 fighter in the 1980s.

Most notable among all of Russia’s cooperative programs with India has been the Su-30MKI that was designed and manufactured for New Delhi in the second half of the 1990s. Former Irkut general director Aleksei Fedorov masterminded this development and he is now the general director of RSK-MiG which is now offering India the MiG-35.

The MiG-35 is to be an ambitious leap. It takes the MiG-29 and redesigns its structure, giving the aircraft an all-new digital internal infrastructure, and engines with a thrust-vector control package similar to that of the Su-30MKI. Press releases and public statements on the MiG-35 have also stated that the Russians will not be outdone and will offer an AESA. The question is whose AESA, since none of the Russian radar design bureaus plan to have a model ready in the time frame that the Indian RFP is anticipated to dictate.

The dark horse candidate in this case is the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Elta EL/M-2052. IAI is showing this radar for the first time at Changi and although its spokesman will not confirm that the company is bidding with MiG on the Indian tender, it does state that the MiG-29/35 is one of the more near-term possibilities. The model seen here at the airshow is set up for a liquid-cooling system like most other AESAs, but IAI engineers claim that a version of this radar for the MiG-29 would be a smaller array, small enough that it could use an air-cooling system. Liquid-cooling systems can be a maintenance headache, so this is not a small accomplishment on the Israeli’s part.

Technology versus Politics
Technology is not the only issue involved. Politically, the current administration in Washington wants to cement closer relations with India. At the same time, the U.S. Air Force would like to have HAL and other Indian firms in the business of operating and supporting U.S.-made aircraft. Having a huge F-16 base in India would allow Lockheed Martin to outsource much of its F-16 after-sales support and free up its engineering workforce to focus on the F-35 JSF.

But can India really afford to turn its back on its long-time friend Russia without so much as a by-your-leave? Additionally, the costs of adding a modern, U.S.-made aircraft into the Indian logistics and maintenance system (which is well-equipped to handle the Mirage and MiG-29 fighters that are currently operated in the IAF) would be a huge, on-going expense. India’s military and political leaders would have to weigh the political and technological benefits against these considerable costs.

One predicted version of events has the Indians upping their buy from 126 to 200 fighters and then buying 100 MiG-29s to keep in good stead with the Russians, plus 100 F-16s or some other Western aircraft in order to provide their industry with a new infusion of technology. This solves a number of political problems for the Indians, and would also give the IAF one of the most powerful fighter forces in the region.

The problem with this “deciding not to decide” option is that it means another 74 aircraft must be purchased, which is not a small sum. Officially, none of the Western firms vying for this contract have been told that the finances for this tender have been increased to allow for this 60-plus percent increase in the buy, so for the moment the contract still appears to be a winner-take-all 126 aircraft deal. Much of this remains speculation until the official request for proposal from the Indian government is released.

“Five–maybe seven–years might be the full scale of this procurement,” said one industry insider with knowledge of Indian defense buying. “And after all of this the answer may still be ‘no, we will not buy anything but will instead keep trying to build our own aircraft.’” The outcome is almost entirely unpredictable–just as a year or more ago the idea that the F-16 or F/A-18 would ever be sold to India was unthinkable.
 

EthanXH58

New Member
India is going to pick it's candidate for MRCA in 5 years. That is a long time from now and then also consider the time it would take to set up the production facilities in India as the fighter is supposed to be manufactured locally.

Therefore I dont think it would have any impact on JF-17 immediately.
 

chinawhite

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
aaaditya,

I suggest you re-read my post again. Im not going to repeat myself.

And please for god sake you sound like you writing this from a mikoyan brochure
 

Hussain

New Member
At present China is being supplied fully with RD93 engines and therefore at present the supply of the engines appears to be an ongoing thing. I don't think Russians are going to be willing to stop supplying engines to China as 5the Chinese are Russia's biggest importers of engines, engine related technology and scientific know how. Also it would appear that the Indians are looking more and more towards Europe and US for its aircraft technology and fighter planes. Until the time comes, if it comes , when the Indians decide to sign a big deal with Russia for more aircraft then the the Russians will be in a position to determine who the Chinese supply the FC1 to with the RD93. At present the Chines have an array of engines (variants of the same engine etc) that can power the later series of FC1's to Pakistan. At present Pakistan should have enough engines for large scale FC1 production fore the Pakistan airforce.

It is also apparent , from yrs of heavy and demanding aircraft use, that Chinese engines have proved reliable and durable, in the very extreme conditions of Pakistan. The F7 MG has proved to be an extremely capable warplane despite its shortish range and small radar housing. The engine has used titanium in its blades which have met all expectations of the manufacturers in performance and reliability.

I think the Pakistani's won't be overtly fussed if the FC1 came with a Chinese engine and was able to do at least Mach 1.5, able to fire various variants of the SD10's and have endurance similar tio the F16. So the engine question is just hot air and the ppakistani's have shown too much concern about this despite Indian insistance that it is a major issue for both Pakistan and China.
 
Last edited:

aaaditya

New Member
chinawhite said:
aaaditya,

I suggest you re-read my post again. Im not going to repeat myself.

And please for god sake you sound like you writing this from a mikoyan brochure
well all i want to tell is that the mig29 being offered to india is a radically redesigned version of the original mig29 that we know and hence we should remember this when we try to compara it with other aircrafts.as far as mirage2000-5 is concerned we might stop discussing about it since it is now officially out of the mrca competition,as french president chirac has announced the closure of the mirage2000-5 facility and the offer of rafale.
 

chinawhite

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
aaaditya said:
plus has been offered with a choice of russian aesa radars like the epaulet-a and the indo-russian irbis(snow leapord radar),
You mean the Zhuk-A? which is in development. which in my opinion would be inferior to the Bars-29 in a few roles since the advantage of AESAs is their ability to jump radar frequencies with their different TR modules. But only have a massive tracking range only when they are on one frequency and using all the modules which would make it highly visible on enemy radars. and using more TR modules makes you get detected eariler. While AESA do have advantages over PESA in roles it wouldn't have as big advantage in a air to air battle considering using more TR modules would make you look like a sore thumb while if you wanted passive capability you would be better using a AWACS aircraft with datalinks or even link up to the MKIs to at as a scanner. The Mig-35 in my opinoin has rediculosly large amount of tracking and engaing since the indians are planning on using AWCAS why would you need such a good radar when you can get information without using it

The Russian Irbis is a massive radar, not as massive as the BARS but it is large and for a big aircraft like the MKI and not for a Mig-35. I would seriously doubt anyone trying to fit one in. Anyway where did you source this from because it doesn't sound like it is being based on anything

The FC-1 has significant range considering NEZ which do decrease your BVR range by a big margn. The basic principle is a 100% chance of a kill and at 80km you fire a missile the other fighter can easily out run it. and you would need to get a lot more closer in to get a kill and thus have more missiles like in a confrontation since the air battle would be full of other fighters and a fighter of the Mig-35s range would be either on a strike mission with limited A2A missiles or in long range air superioty or bascially you will be point interceptor. But that rle is left to the less capable LCA. The FC-1 thus far has a 100km radar with the capability to engage two targets. This is based on the pakistani requiments and the Grifo 7 being rejected because it didn't meet them and the chinese radar being fitted because they did.

russians have offered a fit comparable to the su30mki integrating systems from france and israel
Well i would be surprised if they didn't considering the russians still lack in many areas. But with the FC-1 pakistan will for sure seek better western componets into the FC-1 like they do with all their other fighters. I would think if the french didn't get the deal their opinoin to get the indians back or make money would be to sell the pakistanis their own fit. while the israeli ones might be the best pakistan can get comparable ones from china and other countries which are comaprable

But if you compare the Su-30MKI to say a grippen or Block 60 or the SUperhornet its avonics are not impressive even those these planes are older ot around the same timeframe. The best equipment i would have to say is american or french these days and the Mig-35 would not have a american or french rafale suite on a Mig-35. No matter what the Mig-35 will be getting the FC-1 has a massively improved and quite well finished cockpit and avonics suite from china. But considering the FC-1 is not finished development i think the chiense and pakistanis can do a lot better

russian stealth coating which is claimed to reduce the rcs by a factor of 10.
Are you saying this as fact?. Because the way i heard it was it was a factor of 5 on a Mig-21. Please provide your source for this since i doubt a Mig-35 could be made stealther by a factor of 10 with RAM paint alone. This if true would be fantastic. every plane could be made into a LO one with more RAM paint :coffee

aaaditya said:
well all i want to tell is that the mig29 being offered to india is a radically redesigned version of the original mig29 that we know and hence we should remember this when we try to compara it with other aircrafts.
The MRCA deal is common knowledge :confused:

While anway the first line was a typo but if you read down i wrote Mig-35 several times comparing their capabilities. If you doubted if i was refering to the Mig-29 you should have asked first. And quite clearly i know what Migs are being offered to india (being drilled by indian members elsewhere). numerous mikoyan brochures and other "facts" about the plane. And having customs avonics as well (lol)

And comparing radars or other technologies does not really matter with the Migs because they only have a range of 120-130km detection range while a BVR missile only has a range of 80km. ECM devices are not advanced compared to what anyone else is offering and TVC is not as good as off-boreside missiles.

What do the Mig-35s offer?. A pricely target which is being developed as a multi-role fighter
 

aaaditya

New Member
chinawhite said:
You mean the Zhuk-A? which is in development. which in my opinion would be inferior to the Bars-29 in a few roles since the advantage of AESAs is their ability to jump radar frequencies with their different TR modules. But only have a massive tracking range only when they are on one frequency and using all the modules which would make it highly visible on enemy radars. and using more TR modules makes you get detected eariler. While AESA do have advantages over PESA in roles it wouldn't have as big advantage in a air to air battle considering using more TR modules would make you look like a sore thumb while if you wanted passive capability you would be better using a AWACS aircraft with datalinks or even link up to the MKIs to at as a scanner. The Mig-35 in my opinoin has rediculosly large amount of tracking and engaing since the indians are planning on using AWCAS why would you need such a good radar when you can get information without using it

The Russian Irbis is a massive radar, not as massive as the BARS but it is large and for a big aircraft like the MKI and not for a Mig-35. I would seriously doubt anyone trying to fit one in. Anyway where did you source this from because it doesn't sound like it is being based on anything

The FC-1 has significant range considering NEZ which do decrease your BVR range by a big margn. The basic principle is a 100% chance of a kill and at 80km you fire a missile the other fighter can easily out run it. and you would need to get a lot more closer in to get a kill and thus have more missiles like in a confrontation since the air battle would be full of other fighters and a fighter of the Mig-35s range would be either on a strike mission with limited A2A missiles or in long range air superioty or bascially you will be point interceptor. But that rle is left to the less capable LCA. The FC-1 thus far has a 100km radar with the capability to engage two targets. This is based on the pakistani requiments and the Grifo 7 being rejected because it didn't meet them and the chinese radar being fitted because they did.



Well i would be surprised if they didn't considering the russians still lack in many areas. But with the FC-1 pakistan will for sure seek better western componets into the FC-1 like they do with all their other fighters. I would think if the french didn't get the deal their opinoin to get the indians back or make money would be to sell the pakistanis their own fit. while the israeli ones might be the best pakistan can get comparable ones from china and other countries which are comaprable

But if you compare the Su-30MKI to say a grippen or Block 60 or the SUperhornet its avonics are not impressive even those these planes are older ot around the same timeframe. The best equipment i would have to say is american or french these days and the Mig-35 would not have a american or french rafale suite on a Mig-35. No matter what the Mig-35 will be getting the FC-1 has a massively improved and quite well finished cockpit and avonics suite from china. But considering the FC-1 is not finished development i think the chiense and pakistanis can do a lot better



Are you saying this as fact?. Because the way i heard it was it was a factor of 5 on a Mig-21. Please provide your source for this since i doubt a Mig-35 could be made stealther by a factor of 10 with RAM paint alone. This if true would be fantastic. every plane could be made into a LO one with more RAM paint :coffee



The MRCA deal is common knowledge :confused:

While anway the first line was a typo but if you read down i wrote Mig-35 several times comparing their capabilities. If you doubted if i was refering to the Mig-29 you should have asked first. And quite clearly i know what Migs are being offered to india (being drilled by indian members elsewhere). numerous mikoyan brochures and other "facts" about the plane. And having customs avonics as well (lol)

And comparing radars or other technologies does not really matter with the Migs because they only have a range of 120-130km detection range while a BVR missile only has a range of 80km. ECM devices are not advanced compared to what anyone else is offering and TVC is not as good as off-boreside missiles.

What do the Mig-35s offer?. A pricely target which is being developed as a multi-role fighter
buddy neither your opinion nor mine matters ,it's the iaf that will be selecting the aircraft and rest assured they can get the best fit possible.
the su30mki has french avionics supplied by sextant and israeli and indigenous self defence equipment.

the size of the radar can be varied but at the cost of performance ,iam sure the israeli el-m-2052 would be best suited for it since it is light weight (weighing between 150-180kgs).

the rvv-ae has a range of 100+kms,india is also developing it's astra missile which has a range of 80kms(a ram jet propulsion is currently under development offering an increase in upto 120kms.
 

EthanXH58

New Member
The evolution of JF-17 from 4th prototype onwards places it in the category of early 4th generation fighters. I think one also has to keep in mind that Chinese avionics industry has come a long way and they have moved boyond the reverse engineering stage. There are attempts being made to produce original products.

It is a fact as of now on that the JF-17 will not be retrofitted with the Gifo-S7 radar and rather with a Chinese radar. Question remains is exactly what radar is being retroffitted to the JF-17 and what are it's capabilities.
 

chinawhite

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
aaaditya said:
buddy neither your opinion nor mine matters ,it's the iaf that will be selecting the aircraft and rest assured they can get the best fit possible.
While since we are discussing the avonics question with the "Best" as the topic i would like to point out that they arent the best and cannot get the best since its american and they will only sell or likes just only with a american system. But theres the israeli route which isn't the best and controlled by america. And the things israel does export is watched by america and any market which the israeli are threatening.

Let me quote something from someone which i dont remember who about intel and AMD.

"They(AMD) only survives because they(Intel) let them" -- Forgotten

Israels defence industry only survives because its been benifical for the americans to let it survive. eg. say one country wants american weapons but congress wont allow it. Convert operations happen via israeli defence industries and blamm. they have their system.

The french have never exported their best as systems only. And exporting their systems which are not the best ones they have. I seriously doubt the french are willing to export Rafale Ds to anyone. And if the french get snubed on a whole plane purchase will they be willing to sell you more things that dont make only on. Even on the MKI (which got the "best") didn't get the best and where not any major systems. The best is hard defined but to help another country your competitor improve their system is a hard one to sell to me.

Will the Mig-35 have the best like this
Rafale looks nice :soldier

Or the F-35?
one even better one

the size of the radar can be varied but at the cost of performance
You mean the array and not the radar?. Because with a AESA you need those TRs for performace since you take some away you lose performace which a similar PESA radar can perform. the F-22 has 2000 modules has much do you think a scaled down radar will have?. Economize on size?

the rvv-ae has a range of 100+kms,india is also developing it's astra missile which has a range of 80kms
The difference is the R-77 only has super long range when, I quote

"Fired against high-altitude non-manoeuvring targets approaching head-on, the R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100 km"
Link
Its from bharat-rakshak.

When its fired againest a moving target which is running away the distance goes down to 70-80km. eg the figures of 50miles as range become accurate. While the ramjet version has no end in sight and is being developed with the passive seeker of the R-27P because its actual seeker range was about 130km or even longer but its airframe couldn't go that far. So using the R-77 as a example because of its superior shape and performace put a air breathing engine and wal la you have yourself a super long rnage missile

And about the astra.
To see it is to believe it :rel
 

EthanXH58

New Member
The so called MKI configuration has still not reached full maturity. The avionics package having been seleccted from Franch, Russia, Israel, and India has still not been fully integrated as the Indians expected to do this domestically.

I am not sure, how in the world they reached this conclusion. I am not questioning the competence of the Indian scientists but integration is of different packages from different countries is serious work and requires previous experience. By the time the MKI reaches full maturity, it will already be obsolete.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
aaaditya said:
buddy neither your opinion nor mine matters ,it's the iaf that will be selecting the aircraft and rest assured they can get the best fit possible.
the su30mki has french avionics supplied by sextant and israeli and indigenous self defence equipment.

the size of the radar can be varied but at the cost of performance ,iam sure the israeli el-m-2052 would be best suited for it since it is light weight (weighing between 150-180kgs).

the rvv-ae has a range of 100+kms,india is also developing it's astra missile which has a range of 80kms(a ram jet propulsion is currently under development offering an increase in upto 120kms.
100KM is vs slow moving objects at high altitude
at any reasonable altitude, R-77's range is about 50-80km. (it depends on what the fighter is). The range/effective range is different in different envelops.

Make a note of this: range is not most important part, it's all about NEZ. Also, most of the BVR battles don't take place at 70KM away.

As for the ram paint, every country puts a claim on how effective its ram paint is. Until then, falnker has a huge RCS. There is no denying that.
 

aaaditya

New Member
since mrca discussion is part of this thread and since the rafale is a part of the mrca deal here are some interesting titbits on the rafale and the thales jamming equipment.(the artcle is a bit dated though)

here check out this link:


http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/rafale.htm


KILLER ANGELS BY BILL SWEETMAN (November 2002)

France's Rafale has fire, but will glory remain a mirage?

The Dassault Rafale is a relatively small airplane (it does not need folding wings to fit on a carrier) that carries a very heavy load. The Rafale has an operating empty weight of around 22,000 pounds and was initially designed with a maximum take-off weight of 49,600 pounds. That figure has now been increased to 54,000 pounds, and Dassault is preparing a further jump to 60,000 pounds.

Without fuel or weapons, a Rafale weighs some 3,000 pounds more than a F-16C, but it can take off 10,000 pounds heavier. This allows the Rafale to carry as much as 21,000 pounds of external stores in addition to 9,000 pounds of internal fuel. With twin conformal fuel tanks holding a total of 600 US gallons of fuel - designed and flight-tested by Dassault during its campaign to win Korea's fighter contest - the Rafale can perform a 1,000-nm-radius strike mission, carrying both heavy air-to-surface weapons and air-to-air missiles. Despite these capabilities, the Rafale has failed to win a single export order to date, although it entered hard-fought campaigns in the United Arab Emirates and Korea. Singapore is getting close to a decision on a future high-end fighter aircraft. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has apparently scooped much of the available world market, at least for now, so Singapore, which wants airplanes before the JSF is ready, is a unique opportunity for European contenders, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and its French rival, the Rafale.

Meanwhile, in late August, the Rafale's older stable mate, the Mirage 2000, remains in the running for an initial 24-aircraft order in Brazil, with another 36 aircraft likely to be sold in a follow-on deal. Since the early 1990s, the Mirage has been infused with much of the technology originally developed for Rafale - and even some more advanced features - and the Mirage and Sweden's Gripen (see "Lion of the Sky,"JED , April 2002) have been the most successful challengers to a US monopoly in the fighter business.

The Rafale, like most of its contemporaries, has taken longer to develop than expected. The Rafale A technology demonstrator made its first flight in July 1986. After the breakdown of discussions between France and the four Eurofighter nations, the French Government decided to proceed unilaterally with full-scale development and production of Rafale in 1987. The first of four production-type prototypes flew in 1991.

Unlike the Gripen, the Rafale is an entirely national program with all-new, French-developed airframe, propulsion, avionics, and weapons. The only way to render such a program affordable, given the size of the French armed forces, was to designate the Rafale as the replacement for every combat aircraft in service, from the Navy's ancient Vought F-8E(FN) Crusaders to the Air Force's Mirage IVP strategic reconnaissance aircraft. The result has been a very expensive program, which has competed with other projects - the Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and the Army's Tiger helicopter, for instance - for a finite and fluctuating budget, leading to a long delay in funding production.

However, the Navy's needs are urgent, and the carrier-based Rafale M has become the first Rafale variant to be delivered. The first Rafale squadron, Flotille 12F, was formed in May 2001 and is now working up aboard the Charles de Gaulle . Seven aircraft were deployed on the carrier in the Indian Ocean earlier this summer, and the squadron is expected to be declared fully operational shortly, with ten aircraft. According to French executives, some unofficial training engagements have already taken place between Rafales and US Navy F/A-18s. On June 9, 2002, Rafale Ms of the French Navy operating from the Charles de Gaulle participated in a joint patrol with American fighters. Although the assignment was for reconnaissance over the tense India-Pakistan border and no shots were fired, it marked the official combat debut of the aircraft (see "It Takes Two to Interoperate,"JED , August 2002).

An order for 20 aircraft announced at the end of 2001 brings total firm orders to 61 aircraft (36 for the French Air Force and 25 for the Navy). Deliveries of the first 13-aircraft batch - comprising ten operational Rafale Ms for the Navy and three two-seat Rafale Bs for Air Force testing - are nearly complete. Another 28 aircraft should be delivered by January 2006, and 20 more should follow by February 2007. The first operational aircraft will reach the French Air Force in March 2004, and the first operational squadron is due to form in 2006.

The total domestic requirement for Rafale is 294 aircraft: 60 Rafale M and BM for the Navy, 139 two-seat land-based aircraft and 95 single-seat Air Force variants. The current plan calls for deliveries to continue until 2019.


Fire on High

The Thales RBE2 radar is of the passive electronically-scanned-array (ESA) type, like the B-1's Northrop Grumman APQ-164, with a single power source, transmitter, receiver, and a physically fixed array of phase-shifter modules to steer the beam. The radar has a single beam - unlike the active ESA used on the F-22 and JSF - but it can be pointed instantly in any direction so that it can use a wide variety of interleaved modes. Dassault describes it as the difference between "track while scan" and "track here while scan there." For example, the RBE2 can readily track airborne targets while searching for a target on the ground or providing a ground profile for terrain-following flight.

The passive ESA sacrifices range and sensitivity compared with an active array or the modern mechanically scanned radars used on the Gripen and Typhoon. However, according to Dassault, the passive array was chosen for the initial versions, because the customer wanted the ability to interleave different modes, and the active array was far from mature. Also, the French Air Force operates AWACS early-warning aircraft, and the Navy has E-2C Hawkeyes, with the result that extreme detection range is less important.

The radar is backed up by optical and passive electronic-detection systems. Located immediately behind the radar is the front-sector optronic (FSO) system, produced by Thales. The FSO has two optical heads. On the right is a long-range infrared search and track (IRST), operating in the long-wave IR band, which detects point IR sources over a wide field of view. On the left is a combat-identification sensor, which combines an imaging sensor (daylight video on the prototype and mid-wave IR in production aircraft) and a laser rangefinder. It can track a single target in the front sector and display an enlarged image in the cockpit, and is normally aimed automatically at the most threatening target. If the rules of engagement require visual identification, the Rafale pilot can declare a target as hostile well outside normal visual range.

Information from the Spectra EW suite, the radar, and the OSF are brought together through modular mission computers and presented to the pilot and back-seater via a modern cockpit with 160 square inches of active display space - a close second to the 180 square inches on the larger F-22 and rather more than the Typhoon.

The Rafale cockpit hardware includes a number of unusual or unique features. The large central screen, which normally hosts the main tactical-situation display, is collimated at infinity. The physical optics of the "head-level display" (HLD) are designed so that the top of the HLD is directly below the head-up display (HUD). (On most other fighters, there is a small up-front control panel under the HUD and above the main central display.) Imagery from the identification sensor can be displayed on a window in the HLD. This system allows the pilot to switch from the short-term HUD view to the larger tactical picture without refocusing his eyes or dropping his gaze below the head-up display (HUD).

Contrary to US or other European practice, the Rafale cockpit uses touch-screen panels. The 6-x-6-in. screens on either side of the HLD are touch-sensitive, and there is a touch-control cursor panel beneath the HLD. One advantage of touch-screen is that it provides more glass area in the same space by eliminating the ring of bezel switches around each screen. The Rafale pilot will be issued special silk-lined leather gloves, with no stitching on the fingertips, and a chamois insert, for wiping the screens, above the fingers.

The entire fighter is highly automated, with a single all-electric throttle for both engines and a single start switch. A direct-voice-input (DVI) system is incorporated, with a 50-300-word vocabulary, and Sextant's Topsight helmet-mounted display will be incorporated from the mid-2000s.

The fused tactical display is reminiscent of the F-22's, with a "god's-eye" view of the battle replacing separate sensor displays. Different colors and shapes are used to distinguish hostiles from friendlies, and targets are automatically prioritized. Complementing the god's-eye view is an inset display which shows the relative altitude of the Rafale and its targets.

Despite all this automation, the French air force decided in the early 1990s that most of its operational Rafales would be Rafale B two-seaters. According to Dassault executives, this was not a matter of the pilot-vehicle interface failing to measure up to expectations. Rather, the service concluded that many Rafale missions would be longer and flown in more complex environments than expected. The French Navy is following suit, and as many as 40 of its 60 aircraft will be two-seat Rafale BM fighters.

Like most current combat aircraft, the Rafale is being delivered in successively improved versions. The first operational Rafales are to the F1 standard, providing an early air-to-air capability for the French Navy. A contract for development of the F2 standard-identified as Block 05 for export-was awarded in January 2001. It introduces air-to-surface radar modes and the FSO system. It will also be equipped to carry the Thales Damocles laser-designation pod. Damocles is a lightweight, slim-line pod incorporating a mid-wave focal-plane array infrared imager, and can be fitted with a navigation FLIR in the pylon.

In early 2001, the Rafale International team (Dassault, Snecma, and Thales) committed to the development of an active AESA (AESA) for the Thales RBE2 radar and the uprated M88-3 engine, both of which will be ready for the F3/Block 10 version in 2006. The AESA will be based on technology developed under the Thales/BAE Airborne Multi-mode Solid-state Active-array Radar (AMSAR) program, and will provide greater range and reliability than the passive ESA on the early Rafale. It will be able to be retrofitted to existing aircraft. Another feature introduced with the Block 3 will be a high-resolution synthetic-aperture-radar (SAR) mode for use with GPS/inertially guided weapons.

Another F3/Block 10 feature is the Thales Recce NG (new generation) reconnaissance pod, now under development and being offered for export. Recce NG is a near-real-time system that incorporates the pod and a complete ground segment, including mission planning, a mobile ground terminal, and an exploitation station. With a rotating head, visible and IR focal-plane arrays and a high-speed IR scanner, the Recce NG pod covers night and day reconnaissance from both high and low altitudes.


Teeth of the Wind

The Rafale EW suite, known as Spectra, is one of the most powerful systems installed on a fighter aircraft and is intimately associated with the unique approach to stealth and survivability designed into the Rafale. Dassault executives describe the Rafale as discreet rather than being stealthy in the sense of a F-22. To avoid detection, it combines avionics, tactics, and reduced radar reflectivity with some techniques that have not been directly revealed and are apparently unique.

The first element of discretion is that Spectra's receiver system and the FSO help detect and track targets without using radar. Spectra incorporates a radio-frequency (RF) detection system, a missile-approach warning sensor, and a laser-warning system and provides full 360-degrees coverage. The RF detection subsystem uses prominent square-section antennas, mounted on the lower corners of the engine inlets and in the rear of the fin-top pod, covering 120 degrees each. The receiver antennas use interferometric techniques to measure a signal's angle of arrival within less than 1 degree and are designed so that they do not have a large radar-cross-section (RCS) contribution.

The Rafale is also designed to use terrain masking, particularly at night or in bad, weather when visually cued short-range surface-to-air weapons are less effective. With its maneuverability and a high degree of cockpit automation, the fighter is designed to fly a terrain-avoidance/threat- avoidance profile at 5.5 g and 100 feet in altitude. The RBE2 and a terrain-referenced navigation system, using stored terrain data, are used to provide redundant flight guidance.

Rafale makes extensive use of radar-absorbent material (RAM) in the form of paints and other materials, Dassault engineers have said. RAM forms a saw-toothed pattern on the wing and canard trailing edges, for instance. The aircraft is designed to so that its untreated radar signature is concentrated in a few strong "spikes," which are then suppressed by the selective use of RAM.

Spectra's active jamming subsystem uses phased-array antennas located at the roots of the canards. Dassault has stated that the EW transmit antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system, concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection.

But there is more to Spectra than conventional jamming. Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, a Thales engineer on the Spectra program, remarked in a 1997 interview that Spectra uses "stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible... There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO [low-observable] aircraft." When asked if he was talking about active cancellation, Chaltiel declined to answer.

Earlier this year, Thales and European missile-builder MBDA disclosed that they were working on active-cancellation technology for cruise missiles and had already tested it on a small unmanned aerial vehicle, using a combination of active and passive techniques to manage radar signature. This revelation makes it considerably more likely that active cancellation is already being developed for Rafale.

Active cancellation is a LO technique in which the aircraft, when painted by a radar, transmits a signal which mimics the echo that the radar will receive - but one half-wavelength out of phase, so that the radar sees no return at all. The advantage of this technique is that it uses very low power, compared with conventional EW, and provides no clues to the aircraft's presence; the challenge is that it requires very fast processing and that poorly executed active cancellation could make the target more rather than less visible.

The complexity of active cancellation could account for Spectra's high price tag, estimated in 1997 as "several billion francs" (equivalent to the high hundreds of millions of US dollars) for research and development. One of four Rafale prototypes was dedicated to Spectra tests, along with a Falcon 20 flying testbed. Four new large anechoic chambers were built to support the Spectra project, including one which is large and well equipped enough to operate the complete system in a fully detailed electromagnetic environment.

Spectra's RF systems are backed up by a laser-warning system, an optical missile-launch-warning system, and a full range of expendable countermeasures. There is no towed decoy system.

On the weapons side, the F2/05 Rafale will carry the IR version of the MBDA MICA air-to-air missile. The Rafale is unique in being designed around a single missile, MICA, which has been developed in active-radar and IR versions. Both versions feature a data-link to provide mid-course guidance (like AMRAAM) and vectored thrust for short-range agility. Unlike other IR missiles, therefore, MICA can be launched before the seeker locks, on and can perform a completely silent beyond-visual-range attack. The F2/05 will also carry the MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile.

Whether AESA will be fitted to French F3 aircraft remains to be seen. The French Government may decide to stay with the current RBE2 for cost reasons but is supporting the development of the AESA for export customers.

However, the F3/Block 10 will introduce the Sagem AASM (armement air-sol modulaire, or modular air-to-surface weapon). With a maximum weight of 750 pounds, AASM combines a standard bomb body with a tail kit that incorporates a small rocket booster and a nose section with steerable canard fins. The nose section incorporates either a GPS/inertial guidance system or a GPS/inertial system plus an imaging-IR seeker.

The IR seeker can be programmed before launch with a template of the target derived from reconnaissance imagery. This, according to Sagem, makes the AASM less susceptible to GPS jamming or outages than most weapons in its class, and gives it meter-class accuracy against precision targets. With rocket boost, the weapon has a maximum range of 27 nm. It is due to enter service in 2005. The Rafale will be fitted with a three-point "smart rack" developed by Rafaut, allowing it to carry up to six independently targeted AASMs.

Dassault, Thales, and Snecma have no doubts that the Rafale embodies world-class technology, and its failure to secure export orders is clearly a source of frustration, as evidenced by Dassault's attempt to file a lawsuit against the Korean government following Korea's choice of the F-15. There are, however, a number of factors that have held the Rafale back. Along with the Typhoon, which has won a single contest in Austria, it is one of the more capable and expensive aircraft on the market. The Rafale team argues persuasively that its unique features work and address operational needs, but some customers may prefer the tried US-type approach to missile armament or cockpit ergonomics. Above all, the French government's drip-feed of funds into the program does not engender confidence that the necessary upgrades will be carried out - even though the program is, in reality, as secure as any. Singapore will indeed be an important test for the aircraft.


here guys check out this link (in pdf format) on the thales jammer equipment for the rafale(check out the images).

http://www.thalesgroup.com/all/pdf/AEA.pdf
 

asaracen

New Member
India Can't please all ...

With benefit of hind sight, now we know that Rafale lost the Singapore 'test' too.... it was perhaps more of a diplomatic rather than an aerial dogfight, I would say.

The same forces are at play here. Despite outstanding Rafale credentials, the real Indian selection dilemma is not just the meritorious selection of a suitable MRCA for IAF needs; but a political one where, France comes a poor third after America (nuclear connection) and Russia (long standing trusted supplier/ might decide to start supplying Pakistan)

This MRCA deal would perhaps have little effect on JF-17 planning than to Pakistani choice of another 4th line a/c above and beyond f F16s. This is as Pshamim quite rightly mentioned elsewhere, the ideal situation for Pakistan, just to sit tight, and to play its cards after India has made firm commitments. Then Pakistan will be able to strike the best deal for Rafale / J10 / Typhoon or the Grippen.
 
Last edited:

aaaditya

New Member
asaracen said:
With benefit of hind sight, now we know that Rafale lost the Singapore 'test' too.... it was perhaps more of a diplomatic rather than an aerial dogfight, I would say.

The same forces are at play here. Despite outstanding Rafale credentials, the real Indian selection dilemma is not just the meritorious selection of a suitable MRCA for IAF needs; but a political one where, France comes a poor third after America (nuclear connection) and Russia (long standing trusted supplier/ might decide to start supplying Pakistan)

This MRCA deal would perhaps have little effect on JF-17 planning than to Pakistani choice of another 4th line a/c above and beyond f F16s. This is as Pshamim quite rightly mentioned elsewhere, the ideal situation for Pakistan, just to sit tight, and to play its cards after India has made firm commitments. Then Pakistan will be able to strike the best deal for Rafale / J10 / Typhoon or the Grippen.
and what if india's acquisition of the mrca takes 10 years (that is the history of most major deals in india).
 

asaracen

New Member
Time seems to be on Pakistan's side.

aaaditya said:
and what if india's acquisition of the mrca takes 10 years (that is the history of most major deals in india).
aaaditya I totally agree with your above statement, so do Dassault. That is why they would not hang around and keep their M2K5 production lines operattional any longer, even though IAF have been in negotiations with them for M2K5s (as their favourite a/c) for good many years.

Similarly, the history of major Indian defence developments (concept to induction) spans over decades, and LCA is no exception. A recent report estimates:
The Press Trust of India reports that India's Light Combat Aircraft, in development since 1983, will finally see its System Design & Development (SDD) phase completed in 2010. Meanwhile, Rediff notes foreign assistance requests to help India's indigenous Kaveri engine project for that fighter recover from its development stall.
Hence, if all goes well, the induction is about a decade away - and we all know, things rarely go smoothly with such projects.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/india-lca-tejas-by-2010-but-foreign-help-sought-with-engine/index.php

Time seems to be on Pakistan's side: As a result of ongoing dialogue and improving relations between the two countries, and due to strategic nuclear umbrella, Pakistan is not under same pressure and distress as it was during 1990's. During coming decade, Pakistan is most likely to continue with its ongoing policy of JF-17 development/induction on top of inducting 100+ F-16s, thus closing the gap with IAF before LCA / MRCA get inducted. During the next 10 years China is also expected to sort out its achilles heel - avionics and aero engine refinements, in a spectacular way, and hence JF-17 and J-10 becoming even more worthy contenders in the sky. I believe China is about to do this in the same fashion as its exponential rise in exports during the last 20 years.
Indian and Chinese exports were similar in 1985, and within 20 years China left India (and for that matter the rest of the world) behind by an order of magnitude - 2005 figures: Indian exports $b76.3 v Chinese exports of $b752.0 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Two indicators substantiate my above statement. Firstly, the present JF-17 Chinese Avionics pakage accepted by Pakistan is impressive and way better than Pakistan had anticipated. And secondly, Chinese have been working very hard on avionics and aero engines ever since US / European embargo. It seems to me that the massive Chinese human and capital investments made in the last 15 years have started to bear fruit. One can not just start developing state of the art avionics and advanced aero engines overnight, regardless of how much money and number of men you throw at the problems. It takes time to build infrastructure, appropriate skill sets, knowledge base and whole network of associated suppliers. That is what Chinese have been busy with in the last 15 years.... Just watch how fast Chinese close the gap with West during the next 10 years.

Therefore, after 10 years, as you stated, when India finally has made up its mind and placed an order for 126 MRCAs, and finally LCA induction starts, PAF would have considerably closed the gap with IAF, With induction of BVR missiles, stand off weapons, sufficient number of non nuclear short to medium range missiles, cruise missiles, AWACS (Swedish and / or Chinese) and modern aircraft like JF-17 / F-16 and J-10 in sufficient numbers. By then, Pakistan should have achieved a state of credible conventional defensive deterrance as per Musharraf's stated policy, without getting into an arms race.

This is when, as I suggested in my last post, Pakistan would be able to play its cards for the additional 4/5th generation a/c over and above F-16's.
 
Last edited:

ajaybhutani

New Member
asaracen said:
aaaditya I totally agree with your above statement, so do Dassault. That is why they would not hang around and keep their M2K5 production lines operattional any longer, even though IAF have been in negotiations with them for M2K5s (as their favourite a/c) for good many years.
originally m2k-5 was in competition with su30 which it lost as indians prioritized the induction of long range fighters.. and so such a long talks with M2k-5.
asaracen said:
Similarly, the history of major Indian defence developments (concept to induction) spans over decades, and LCA is no exception. A recent report estimates:
The Press Trust of India reports that India's Light Combat Aircraft, in development since 1983, will finally see its System Design & Development (SDD) phase completed in 2010. Meanwhile, Rediff notes foreign assistance requests to help India's indigenous Kaveri engine project for that fighter recover from its development stall.
Hence, if all goes well, the induction is about a decade away - and we all know, things rarely go smoothly with such projects.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/india-lca-tejas-by-2010-but-foreign-help-sought-with-engine/index.php
1. india had to start from scratch with the LCA( as it neve paid any attention to aerospace before) program.. setting up with whole industry itself. which takes time and thus the long gap between the start of the program and first flight.
2. The production of first LCA under LSP is in progress.Showing that there are no glitches stopping the induction speed right now(with the GE engines.)
3. 2010 is the date for finishing the project. System design and development phase doesnt imply that we cannot start producing the planes before that. the production of LCA's will start immediately after the LSP of 8 planes completes. and that date will much earlier than 2010.
4. delay in kaveri wont stall the LCA production as GE-404-IN-20 have been ordered.
5. the production order for 20 planes is expected to be sent out this year. with 20 more to follow.

asaracen said:
Time seems to be on Pakistan's side: As a result of ongoing dialogue and improving relations between the two countries, and due to strategic nuclear umbrella, Pakistan is not under same pressure and distress as it was during 1990's. During coming decade, Pakistan is most likely to continue with its ongoing policy of JF-17 development/induction on top of inducting 100+ F-16s, thus closing the gap with IAF before LCA / MRCA get inducted. During the next 10 years China is also expected to sort out its achilles heel - avionics and aero engine refinements, in a spectacular way, and hence JF-17 and J-10 becoming even more worthy contenders in the sky. I believe China is about to do this in the same fashion as its exponential rise in exports during the last 20 years.
Indian and Chinese exports were similar in 1985, and within 20 years China left India (and for that matter the rest of the world) behind by an order of magnitude - 2005 figures: Indian exports $b76.3 v Chinese exports of $b752.0 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
i m totally lost here . u started with " time seems to be on paksitans side" and ended up with a china india and that too export comparison.

about india pakistan comparison. since taking your figures of the coming decade.
lets look at india
by 2015 production run for MKI would have finished. so
1. 190 SU30MKI's.(or more.. as in case the IAf no's start depleting india might opt for more of MKI's to compensate.).
already available
2. 50 M2k's which would have by then been upgraded.
3. 70 Mig29's. again upgraded.
lets look at MRCA lemme assume ur statement that it will take 5 years for the deal to finalize..i.e. 2010. and considering the depleting no's the order size can be expected to be increased to 200 odd. so making it some 50 off the shelf( it would be fine to assume that these 50 will come well in by next 5 years). and also the local production starting with the kits first followed by local parts. i can salely assume no's of 10-14 per year.) giving a total of 50-70 local planes(using kits and local parts) by 2015). so total comes to 100-120
4. 100-120. MRCA's.
lets look at LCA 20-40 by the time 2010 SDD is achieved. followed by a production run of 20 planes a year. giving a total of 120-140
5. 120-140 LCA's.

total of 530-570 Gen4 planes.Even with slippages. of these 300 odd are confirmed ones( in the form of MKI,already available planes).
lets look at pakistan.
1. taking ur figure of 100 F16's.
2. adding another 150 JF17's.
which other gen 4 plane is paksitan proposing to buy?
Quite frankly what i m worried about is the purchasing power of paksitan. with its 3.8B$ of total military budget.can it induct 10 F16's a year (lemme assume flyaway cost of 50m $ per plane) for 500M $. and another 10-15 JF17's a year with manufacturing facilities.at more than 200 M $ for planes.. that makes it some 700m$ per year of direct outright purchase.. what will be left for the PAF for buying the fuel and maintenance.


asaracen said:
Two indicators substantiate my above statement. Firstly, the present JF-17 Chinese Avionics pakage accepted by Pakistan is impressive and way better than Pakistan had anticipated. And secondly, Chinese have been working very hard on avionics and aero engines ever since US / European embargo. It seems to me that the massive Chinese human and capital investments made in the last 15 years have started to bear fruit. One can not just start developing state of the art avionics and advanced aero engines overnight, regardless of how much money and number of men you throw at the problems. It takes time to build infrastructure, appropriate skill sets, knowledge base and whole network of associated suppliers. That is what Chinese have been busy with in the last 15 years.... Just watch how fast Chinese close the gap with West during the next 10 years.

Therefore, after 10 years, as you stated, when India finally has made up its mind and placed an order for 126 MRCAs, and finally LCA induction starts, PAF would have considerably closed the gap with IAF, With induction of BVR missiles, stand off weapons, sufficient number of non nuclear short to medium range missiles, cruise missiles, AWACS (Swedish and / or Chinese) and modern aircraft like JF-17 / F-16 and J-10 in sufficient numbers. By then, Pakistan should have achieved a state of credible conventional defensive deterrance as per Musharraf's stated policy, without getting into an arms race.

This is when, as I suggested in my last post, Pakistan would be able to play its cards for the additional 4/5th generation a/c over and above F-16's.
you are missing the most important point here.. and that is money. here we are trying to compare a 800 B $ economy(india) with a 90B$ economy.india today spends just 2.5 % of its GDP on defence. i.e. 20B$. while for paksitan its already 5 $ of its GDP. with growth rates no lesser than paksitan.. india's defence budget allocation as a % of GDP is supposed to rise further.. implying more and more money for defence.if u really think that paksitan can bridge the gap.. you are overlooking major facts.
 

asaracen

New Member
MRCA procurement time frame immaterial - Time is on Pakistan's side

It is immaterial whether IAF gets MRCAs in 5 years or ten. The fact remains that once the MRCA bid winners (probably no more than 2 - F18 & MIG29) and losers (possibly 3 - Rafale, Grippen, Eurofighter) have been sorted, Pakistan could effectively play its cards. Pakistan could go for either one of those 3 so called losers, for its other 4/5th generation fighter over and above F16. Just watch Saudi and Turkish interest in Typhoon. There might be a clue in that for things to come for PAF.

Until that time, all PAF have to do is to induct F16s & JF-17s and keep adding advanced capabilities and technologies that it never had. In addition, listening to Musharraf's comments, I believe that in next 5 years PAF will buy J-10 any way, albeit in small numbers to start with.

With respect to possible LCA induction time frames, going by the untenable claims made previously, your present guess and speculation is as good as any ones. The realistic time frame for LCA induction may stretch anywhere between 10 years - infinity. Some would argue that in 10 -12 years time there would be no point in inducting LCA, as new 5th generation aircraft from US, China and Russia would have rendered LCA obsolete. But then in shelving LCA project, the silver lining for India might be having learnt some valuable lessons from this exercise.

Pakistan is a smaller country compared wih India, and consequently it has much smaller defence budget too. At the same time Pakistan does not have as grand aspirations for its role in the region, as India does. Pakistan has a just and realistic policy of maintaining a minimum effective conventional & strategic deterrance. Indo-Pak border events of 2001-2002 have amply tested and proven beyond all doubt that Pakistan has achieved this, all within a defence budget less than quarter of India's. The reasons for Pakistan getting more bang for buck are many. But I'll give you only a couple of instances to illustrate why Pakistan's small budget of approx. $4 billion has managed to provide Pakistan with such an effective deterrance, without entering into a damaging arms race:

1) Pakistan does not suffer from self deceiving ideas of grandiose
Hence, all projects are planned and executed within realistic frame work of available capabilities within Pakistan. Where prudence, cost effectiveness and efficiency calls for foreign collaboration or resources, it is readily sought. This is how the rest of the world operates. And this is how Pakistan avoids bitter and very expensive experiences like Indian Arjun, LCA and others.

2) PAF / PN and PA are always an integral part of Pakistani indigenous weapons development
AS opposed to Indian development and production of weapon systems by civilian organisations, in Pakistans case, a huge contingent of armed forces personnel (from Generals to Jawans) is actually assigned for development and production of weapon systems within various organisations (including Al-Khalid tanks, JF-17 and Agosta submarine projects). Who knows whether this headcount appears on the MOD or Weapon Complex payroll. These are combat ready personnel, who could be called for action at a moments notice, but in peace time they are actually involved in advanced, creative and productive work. Saving the country a lot of money in salaries is only small part of this enterprise. The real benefit is that the end users are an integral part of the whole prcess - from inception to production and beyond. And hence you will never ever come across a situation in Pakistan, where an important project like Indian Arjun would be rejected after 25 years labour and hundreds of millions of investment. Furthermore, the key to comparatively faster, high quality and cost effective development of Pakistani weapon systems is that sometimes weapon system development takes place on war footing, in an a militarised organisational culture. Officers / Jawans are committed for 24 hours (not just 9-5) and if a deadline is backed by an order from above, then it will be met, whether you burn midnight oil or cancell all leave requests. You will possibly see this level of commitment only in China, and it certainly would not exist in DRDO, and other similar Indian institutions. This is how Pakistan was able to develop nuclear capability at a tiny cost of less than $400 m.(quoted in 2005 during TV interview by Mirza Aslam Beg - ex Pak Army COS). Other examples are, Shaheen; JF-17 (1/2 of total development cost of $450m http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/08/mil-030830-irna01.htm ); Al-Khalid ($20 m- over 8 years http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/pakistan/2004/pakistan-040924-irna01.htm ) and Babur cruise missile.

Conclusions: My reason for going into such detail was to assure you that Pakistani defence budget, albeit small, is quite sufficient to meet Pakistans stated defence strategy, and this has been made possible by good planning, and careful & effective use of precious resources. I can say this as I have visited all 3 HIT factories and have seen Al-Khalid, Al-Zarrar tanks and APCs being manufactured, and have spoken at length with HIT DG and others. With regards to funding for new equipment, please take a note that like China's defence budget, Pakistani defence budget is more complex than meets the eye. For instance, where would you find in Pakistani budget, let alone in defence budget, over $1 billion / annum (over and above $3 billion - 5 year package) that Pakistan receives from USA as compensation for Pakistani effort on the Western front. This amount alone, over the next 10 years, is sufficient to fund all PAF requirements.

And finally, Indian MRCA tender would not have much effect on JF-17 development now. For future, Pakistani choices for another 4/5th generation a/c, over and above F16 & J10, would be made after India had shown its hand with MRCA selection. The time is definitely on Pakistan's side.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Super Moderator
It's just unbelievable how certain Pakistanis think that they have enough budget to compete with India. In the JF-17 project, Pakistan paid for like 58% of the development cost, but it actually didn't do much in terms of design and such. It was pretty much a CAC project that got funding from the Pakistanis. The Al Khalid tank is just the Pakistani version of MBT-2000. For some reason, it became this super indigenous tank when I hear Pakistanis talk about it. Do you think pakistan would've developed nuclear capability that cheaply without China's help?

Honestly, stop dreaming about having an air force better than that of India. You have probably 1/4 of India's resources if you are lucky. Build a cheap defensive air force that can support your ground troops.

As for the other 4th generation fighters for Pakistan most likely will be J-10. The recent comments by Musharraf makes it sound like PAF will get J-10 pretty soon.
 
Top